Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] Luc André, FYI, we updated your name to match
how you updated it in RFC 9722 during AUTH48 recently.
Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we note that RFC 5306 does not mention "LDP".
Apparently the digits were transposed, so we updated the reference
from [RFC5306] to [RFC5036], titled "LDP Specification".
Please let us know if this is not accurate.
Original:
b. Port-Active redundancy eliminates the need for ICCP and LDP
[RFC5306] (e.g., VXLAN [RFC7348] or SRv6 [RFC8402] may be used in
the network).
Current:
b. It eliminates the need for ICCP and LDP [RFC5036] (e.g., Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] or Segment
Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8402] may be used in the network).
-->
3) <!--[rfced] The text states that one or more PEs keep the port in
standby mode. Do one or more PEs keep the port in active mode
as shown below?
Original:
PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in
[RFC8584] to determine which PE keeps the port in active mode and
which one(s) keep it in standby mode.
Perhaps:
PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in
[RFC8584] to determine which PE(s) keeps the port in active mode
and which PE(s) keeps it in standby mode.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] [RFC7432] does not mention a "Single-Active blocking
scheme", but it does mention "Single-Active redundancy mode". Is
an update perhaps needed to the text below?
Original:
Non-DF routers SHOULD implement a bidirectional blocking scheme
for all traffic comparable to the Single-Active blocking scheme
described in [RFC7432], albeit across all VLANs.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Should Figure 2 be updated to show the T bit as
defined in RFC-to-be 9722 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12),
which is currently in AUTH48 state? If so, should any text
be added to mention that document?
(This question also appears in RFC-to-be 9785.)
Original:
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|D|A| |P| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Perhaps:
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|D|A| |T| |P| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-->
6) <!--[rfced] How may we rephrase this sentence for clarity? We note
that "DF Elected" is not used elsewhere in the document or in the
normative references; should "Elected" perhaps be removed (option A),
or should "election" perhaps be used instead (option B)?
Also note that RFC 8584 expands "BDF" as "Backup Designated Forwarder"
(rather than "Back-up DF Elected"); may we update this expansion
accordingly?
Original:
The algorithm to detemine the DF Elected and Backup-DF
Elected (BDF) at Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated
and summarized below using only (Es) in the computation:
Perhaps A:
The algorithm used to determine the DF and Backup Designated
Forwarder (BDF) per Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated and
summarized below using only (Es) in the computation:
or
Perhaps B:
The algorithm used to determine the DF and Backup Designated
Forwarder (BDF) elections per Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is
repeated and summarized below using only (Es) in the computation:
-->
7) <!--[rfced] In the title of Section 4.1, we added "Bits" as the "P and
B bits" are described in this section. Please let us know if this
update is not correct.
Original:
4.1. Primary / Backup per Ethernet-Segment
Current:
4.1. Primary/Backup Bits per Ethernet Segment
-->
8) <!--[rfced] Does the remote ESI label extended community signal a
Single-Active "procedure" or perhaps "redundancy mode"? Please
clarify.
Original:
* The remote ESI Label Extended Community ([RFC7432]) signals
Single-Active (Section 3)
Perhaps:
* The remote ESI label extended community [RFC7432] signals the
Single-Active redundancy mode (Section 3).
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.
Bitmap field vs. bitmap field
[Are these different? For example, "a Bitmap (2 octets) field" vs.
"DF Election Capabilities bitmap field"]
b) We updated the text to use the form on the right for consistency
within this document and Cluster 492 (C492). Please let us know of any
objections.
active-standby -> active/standby
All-active -> All-Active
DF Election -> DF election (for general use, per RFC 8584)
DF Election extended community -> DF Election Extended Community (per RFC
8584)
'Don't Pre-empt' -> 'Don't Preempt' (per companion doc and IANA registry)
ESI Label Extended Community -> ESI label extended community (per RFC 7432)
Ethernet-AD per-ES -> Ethernet A-D per ES (per RFC 8584)
Port Mode DF Election -> Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election (per IANA)
Single-active -> Single-Active
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations
a) FYI: We have added expansions for the following abbreviations
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
Customer Equipment (CE)
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)
Media Access Control (MAC)
Neighbor Discovery (ND)
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF)
Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS)
Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN)
b) For consistency within the RFC series and C492, we updated
the document to use the form on the right. Please review.
AC-Influenced Designated Forwarder Election (AC-DF) ->
AC-Influenced DF (AC-DF) election (per RFC 8584)
Interchassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) ->
Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP)
Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) ->
Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) group
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
- black-holing
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/kc/ar
On May 15, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/05/15
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9786
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9786 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13)
Title : EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode
Author(s) : P. Brissette, LA. Burdet, Ed., B. Wen, E. Leyton, J. Rabadan
WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
